The case studies section of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors' newsletter, the Bulletin, has recently carried a series of pointers on the vexed subject of solicitor/executors and Law Society practice rule 15.

But, from the responses received, it would appear that the situation vis-a-vis solicitors' responsibilities is still far from clear.

(These observations will, of course, apply equally to cases where there is more than one executor and all the executors are members of the same firm).The questions are: who should the practitioner regard as his client in probate matters? And are there circumstances in which he or she should be giving rule 15 information to, or dealing with complaints by, those who are not his or her clients?There are three possible scenarios.Where t he executors of a will are laymenIn this scenario, the executors will have no connection with the solicitor's firm and the solicitor is instructed by the executors to obtain probate and to act in the administration of the estate.In that case, the situation is clear.

It is the executor -- or both of them if there is more than one -- who is the client and it is the executor to whom all the information required by practice rule 15 should be given.

The executor is the only person entitled to make a complaint with which the solicitor is expected to deal in accordance with his firm's complaints procedure.In practice it is found that many complaints arise out of disagreements between beneficiaries and executors.

If a complaint is received from a beneficiary, whether specific or residuary, that beneficiary can be politely referred to the executor with an explanation that it is the executor who is the client and that it would, therefore, not be correct for the solicitor to correspond with the beneficiary.Where the solicitor, or a member of the firm, is appointed to be the executorIn this instance the solicitor, or a member of the firm, will be appointed as executor of the will and he so acts in obtaining probate and administering the estate.In those circumstances solicitor/executors are their own client, and there is no compulsion on them to give costs information to anyone else.

They will not be penalised in any way by the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) for failing to give costs information, for example, to a residuary beneficiary.With regard to the question of general service complaints, for example, those involving delay or failing to account, the position is somewhat different.

It would be nonsensical to have a situation where beneficiaries, who were not clients of the solicitor/executor, had to refer complaints to the solicitor as executor and, as executor, that solicitor could tell the beneficiaries that they had no grounds for complaint and he was satisfied that he, with his solicitor's hat on, was dealing with things perfectly properly.It is to guard against that kind of situation that the OSS will contemplate complaints by a residuary beneficiary where there is no lay executor or in circumstances such as those described below.

It is also in these circumstances where, subject to how many of them there are, the OSS would like solicitor/executors to give rule 15 information to residuary beneficiaries and keep them informed of progress, although there is no compulsion on them to do so.

Indeed, solicitors themselves may think it sensible from both a public relations and a 'potential client' point of view, to treat such people as if they are clients, even if, strictly speaking, they are not.Perhaps the best way of addressing that type of situation, assuming the solicitor is prepared to do so, would be to write to the residuary beneficiaries at the outset of the matter giving them the normal costs information and explaining that -- although they are not clients in the strict sense of the word -- the solicitor is prepared, if they all agree, to keep them informed as to progress.

The solicitor should also set out the anticipated cost of giving them that information, or explain how the cost will be calculated.

The reason why they all need to agree is to avoid the later possibility of any who did not in fact agree accusing the solicitor of wasting costs.The reason why the OSS will accept complaints from persons who are not clients of the solicitor, is that, if it were otherwise, residuary beneficiaries would h ave nowhere, and no one, to whom they could have recourse, should a complaint arise, without embarking on expensive litigation.

This would result in manifest unfairness if, for example, it was taking an unreasonable time for the estate to be realised and distributed.Where the solicitor is a joint executor with a laymanHere the situation is more complicated and less definite.

All really depends on the nature, or standing, of the co-executor.

This is where it all becomes something less than an exact science, as one has to make a judgment about the standing of the co-executor.In these circumstances it is the lay executor, together with the professional executor, who are the clients.

The lay executor is the person who is entitled to the Rule 15 information and from whom the solicitor has to accept complaints.If the co-executor is not a beneficiary of any kind -- and has been appointed simply because he was an old friend of the deceased, and someone the deceased believed could be relied on to see that his wishes were carried out -- he may not have sufficient personal interest to pursue any complaints.

Under those circumstances, particularly if the co-executor is elderly, the situation would not be regarded in the same way.It is still the lay executor who is the solicitor's client and who is the person solely entitled to the relevant information under rule 15.However, the position is different with regard to dealing with complaints, because it is more akin to that under the second point above, and the OSS would, in those circumstances, expect the solicitor to deal with complaints which come from any one, or more, of the residuary beneficiaries.The difficulty is that the position may not be quite so clear-cut as it is in the examples given earlier.

Perhaps the better view would be that, no matter what the strict interpretation might be, it would be in the interests of good client relations to treat all residuary beneficiaries as though they were clients, even if, strictly speaking, they are not.Certainly, as indicated above, the OSS would prefer solicitors to deal with complaints from residuary beneficiaries as though they were clients and that is certainly the line taken by the Legal Services Ombudsman and consumer organisations.However, it is possible to conceive of circumstances where that may not be desirable, for example if the complaint arises from a family squabble, or if just one of many residuary beneficiaries seeks to raise a matter when all the others are perfectly happy.

There was, for instance, one complaint referred to the OSS by a residuary beneficiary who refused to sign the accounts until his complaints had been dealt with to his satisfaction, thus holding up the distribution of the estate to each of the other 22 beneficiaries, all of whom had no complaint whatsoever.But perhaps, from the practitioner's point of view, the more important aspect of all this is: what penalty might the OSS impose if a complaint is made to it by someone who is not, in reality, a client?The powers of the OSS, from a purely financial point of view, are, in cases where there is a finding of inadequacy of service, to reduce a solicitor's profit costs and/or to make a compensatory award.

However, compensation can only be awarded to a client.

It follows that such an award can only be made to a residuary beneficiary when that person is also a client in the strict sense of the word.

Therefore, where a complaint is made by someone who is not a client of the solicitor complained of, the only power available to the OSS is to reduce the solicitor's costs, which would, of course, have a knock-on effect of increasing the residuary estate which would benefit all of the residuary beneficiaries.It should be noted that the OSS does not need a complaint to be made to it in order to empower it to investigate the quality of service afforded by a solicitor.

Any previous uncertainty about this was finally removed by the provisions of schedule 7, para 11 (2) (c) of the Access to Justice Act 1999.One final observation.

Many firms, as a matter of good practice -- and, no doubt with an eye to trying to recruit clients -- treat residuary beneficiaries as clients.

They then provide those residuary beneficiaries with rule 15 information, particularly in instances where there are not so many of them that to give such information might lead to another complaint of wasting money.It should also be borne in mind that, in cases where there is no lay executor, residuary beneficiaries have the specific right to apply for a remuneration certificate.